Cursing Canaan

Introduction

A Misdirected Curse?

Following the account of the Flood and its aftermath, Bereshit 9 presents an epilogue in which Noach gets drunk and exposes himself in his tent ("וַיִּתְגַּל בְּתוֹךְ אָהֳלֹה"). The Torah proceeds to describe the contrasting reactions of Noach's children:

While Cham "sees" his father's nakedness, Shem and Yefet cover their father. As a result, when Noach awakens from his drunken stupor and becomes aware of what transpired, he blesses Shem and Yefet. Surprisingly, though, he conveys his displeasure with Cham, not by cursing Cham himself, but rather by singling out one of Cham's sons, namely Canaan:

Who is the "Youngest Son"?

Two other phrases in the story raise further questions about the connection between Cham and Canaan's role in the deed. The story opens with the announcement that Cham was the father of Canaan ("וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן"), and when Cham acts against his father, he is again identified as Canaan's father ("וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן"). Why does the narrator find it necessary to share this fact here, let alone repeat it? Does the pairing of father and son suggest that the two acted in concert, or that Canaan played some role in the episode?

Additionally, after Noach awakens from his stupor, the Torah states that he became aware of what "his youngest son" ("בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן") had done to him. On first read, it is natural to assume that the text refers to the previously mentioned Cham. However, based on the order given elsewhere in the lists of Noach's sons,1 Cham would appear to be not the youngest son of Noach, but rather his middle child. If so, who is the "בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן" who committed the offense? Interestingly, Canaan is listed last among Cham's sons,2 suggesting that he was the youngest of them. It is possible that the text refers to him? Why, though, would he be referred to as Noach's son?

What was Done to Noach?

Verse 22 above speaks of Cham "seeing" Noach's nakedness ("וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו"). Yet, while viewing his father naked would have been a disrespectful act, it is unclear why such an action would be deserving of eternal damnation. Could the verse be a euphemism for something more than meets the eye? Indeed, the term "ראה ערוה" and the similar phrase "גלה ערוה" are used elsewhere in the Torah to connote a sexual act.3 Did Cham merely look at his father, or might he have done something much more sinister?